9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner in respect of the demand raised against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order dated 01.08.2012. The petitioner has filed an appeal, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the petitioner has already argued the matter and submitted detailed written submissions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remand report requested from the Assessing Officer which was earlier not complete, has now, according to learned counsel for the respondents, been completed. This is, however, disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On 11.02.2013, the Commissioner while considering the stay application of the petitioner had concluded as under:- "3. I have gone throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In any case, the total payment should not be less than 30 crore up to 31/3/2013. (iii) The first installment should be paid by 20/2/2013 and the second by 20/3/2013. This order shall be reviewed on 10th of April, 2013. (iv) It has been made clear that failure to adhere to the arrangement of payment of demand will render the assessee for coercive action for recovery by treating assessee in default." (underlining added) 3. It will be noticed from the above extract that at that point of time, the Commissioner was under the impression that the disputed amount was Rs. 665 crores and the amount of Rs. 369 crores was undisputed. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... happened on 10.04.2013 but a hearing was granted on 16.04.2013, when the matter was apparently adjourned to 22.04.2013. According to the petitioner, the Commissioner had orally rejected the prayer for further extension of the stay granted by the Commissioner. However, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Commissioner had fixed 22.04.2013 as the date for further consideration. Be that as it may, we feel that since the Commissioner, in the order dated 11.02.2013 has herself stated that the order would be reviewed on 10.04.2013. As such, it would be appropriate if the Commissioner considers the same and passes an order in respect of the future. The learned counsel for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; "10. I have gone through the decisions cited by the assessee company with regard to stay of outstanding demand. I am of the opinion that though there are compelling circumstances as the assessment order appears to be high pitched and a genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee, the outstanding tax dues have to be paid by the assessee within a reasonable time. The instruction No. 1914 also provides that: (ii) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such condition as he may think fit. Thus he may, - (a) require the assessee to offer suitable security to safeguard the interest of revenue; (b) require the assessee to pay towards the disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be paid by 20/05/2013 and then by 20th day of each month starting from June, 2013. (iii) It has been made clear that failure to adhere to the arrangement of payment of demand will render the assessee liable for coercive action for recovery of arrear tax, by treating the assessee in default." (underlining added) 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. While, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner is under no position (financially) to make the payments as per the directions of the Commissioner by virtue of the impugned order and that the petitioner has an excellent case, we feel that the Commissioner ought to have stuck to the same methodolo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
